Commonwealth v. Thornton
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 4 — FORFEITED RECOGNIZANCE APPEAL PROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT. The facts appear in the opinion of the court. 1. The court erred in not rendering judgment because there was no answer filed. (Grim. Code, sec. 92; Civil Code, sec. 409, 410,388.) Thornton’s affidavit cannot be treated as an answer. None of the securities appeared or answered, and, as to them, the error is manifest.
Read the full summary
CASE 4 — FORFEITED RECOGNIZANCE APPEAL PROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT. The facts appear in the opinion of the court. 1. The court erred in not rendering judgment because there was no answer filed. (Grim. Code, sec. 92; Civil Code, sec. 409, 410,388.) Thornton’s affidavit cannot be treated as an answer. None of the securities appeared or answered, and, as to them, the error is manifest. (4 Bibb, 181; 2 Mar., 132; 3 Mon., 212; 1 Dana, 98.) 2. The court has no constitutional power to remit a forfeiture of a recognizance. (Art. 1, secs. 1 and 2, Con. Ky.) Ib., art 3, sec. 10; 14 B. Mon., 392; 9 B.…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Simpson
William Thornton, a man of color, was indicted in the Taylor circuit court, on a charge of vagrancy. At the November term of the court, in the year 1857, he, with three other persons as his securities, entered into a recognizance in the sum of one hundred dollars for his appearance at the next term of the court. At the March term, 1858, being the next term of the court, an order was made forfeiting his recognizance, because of his failure to appear, and awarding a summons against him and his securities to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against them for the amount of the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Swift v. EsdaleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1975
- Schmidt v. KlotzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Turner v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Harding v. PrattMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Cilley v. ChildsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.